[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 14 (Friday, February 11, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 FAILING NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

                                 ______


                           HON. HENRY J. HYDE

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, February 11, 1994

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend to my colleagues an 
article in the commentary section of yesterday's Washington Times that 
points up a major failing of the Clinton administration's new national 
drug control strategy.
  Entitled ``Indispensable interdiction,'' it is written by my two 
colleagues from New York, Congressman Charles B. Rangel and Congressman 
Benjamin A. Gilman, the former chairman and vice chairman of the House 
Select Committee on Narcotics.
  The article underscores the fact that the direction this 
administration is taking on what may be the single most destructive 
force that is devastating our cities--narcotics--is truly a bipartisan 
concern.
  I ask that the full article be printed in the Record at this point.

                       Indispensable Interdiction

                (By Charles Rangel and Benjamin Gilman)

       After an extensive policy review, the Clinton 
     administration has apparently concluded that broad-scale 
     international interdiction of narcotics, as pursued under 
     prior administrations, has failed to reduce the supply of 
     illegal drugs in the United States.
       Instead, the administration plans to focus heavily on the 
     treatment and rehabilitation of hardcore abusers. This 
     approach, however, ignores the relationship between drug 
     availability and use, and will be a prescription for defeat.
       Between 1987 and 1991, 552 metric tons of cocaine were 
     seized in Latin America alone. At the same time, the 
     percentage of cocaine users in the United States dropped by 
     more than half.
       Just this month, University of Michigan researchers, in 
     their annual survey for the National Institute of Drug Abuse, 
     found that drug use is up among American teenagers after a 
     decade of decline.
       Besides reducing supply, interdiction also has a deterrent 
     effect which cannot be measured solely by quantifiable means 
     such as seizures and arrests.
       The amount of drugs not manufactured or shipped to the 
     United States for fear of seizure is immeasureable but 
     nonetheless important.
       Nor can the added costs to traffickers for the shipments 
     they do make be quantified, but those costs make drugs more 
     expensive on the street and less easily obtainable.
       The question, however, is not how much gets in even with 
     interdiction, but how much more would get in without a major 
     interdiction program, and the impact of those additional 
     drugs on our cities and youth, and on our treatment and 
     rehabilitation efforts.
       Interdiction assumes increasing importance as dealers seek 
     to expand their markets by distributing free drug samples on 
     the streets and in the schools.
       If interdiction is allowed to lag, the result inevitably 
     will be more and cheaper drugs on the streets. This will 
     swamp the very treatment programs on which the administration 
     wants to focus because today's casual user is tomorrow's 
     hardcore abuser.
       The administration's own emphasis on community policing is 
     itself a form of street-level interdiction.
       Community policing is an effective tool against illicit 
     drugs, but it must be part of a broad strategy that attacks 
     the entire chain of trafficking, beginning in the producing 
     countries and continuing through the transit zones to the 
     dealers.
       A successful counter-narcotics strategy must include 
     reduction of demand through education, treatment and 
     rehabilitation, as well as reduction of supply through 
     eradication, interdiction and enforcement.
       Diminishing any of these components would be a major 
     mistake with severe consequences.
       The administration should not abandon interdiction, 
     especially without clear evidence that this would not 
     exacerbate the nation's already serious crime problem, health 
     care costs, violence, and the other negative aspects of the 
     illicit narcotics trade.
       Overseas interdiction carries the battle to the traffickers 
     in their own backyards. If given full support, interdiction 
     of the larger quantities that can be seized while in transit 
     can be as effective in reducing available drugs as 
     interdiction on the street.
       Federal drug agencies in recent years have forced the 
     traffickers to conduct their business further and further 
     away from the United States. The administration should build 
     on this progress rather than allow our streets to become the 
     first line of defense against drugs.
       The American people also need to hear from the Secretary of 
     State that illicit narcotics are among the administration's 
     major foreign policy concerns and will receive the attention 
     and resources it requires.

                          ____________________